Quote:A controversial new Texas law requiring voters to present personal identification before going to the polls has been blocked by the Obama administration.

In a letter Monday to state officials, the Justice Department said the legislation could have a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and other minorities.

Texas is among eight states to require official photo identification in an effort to stop what officials say is voter fraud. Opponents of the laws say they disenfranchise poor, minority and disabled voters.

The department concluded there is little evidence of voter fraud in Texas warranting the legislative changes.

"We note that the state's submission did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general.

The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives the federal government the power to oversee any changes in voting procedures in states and jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination.

Texas' new voting boundaries for congressional and legislative seats are also being challenged separately in federal court.

The Justice Department, relying on statistics provided by the state, said Hispanics in particular would be negatively affected by the Texas law.

"Under the data provided in January, Hispanics make up only 21.8% of all registered voters, but fully 38.2% of the registered voters who lack these forms of identification. Thus, we conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by (the state Department of Public Safety) could range from 603,892 to 795,955," Perez said in the letter, addressed to the director of elections for the Texas secretary of state.

"Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card ... and that disparity is statistically significant," Perez said.

A similar voter ID law in South Carolina was blocked by the Obama administration in December.

Texas and South Carolina now have the option of asking a federal court in Washington to review the laws, and allow them to be enforced this election year.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry released a statement soon after the Justice Department's decision was announced, slamming it as "yet another example of the Obama administration's continuing and pervasive federal overreach."

"The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane," he said.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has defended the law, saying it imposes "minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote."

Voters in the state would be required to present one of seven types of government-issued photo identification, including a driver's license, a passport or a concealed handgun permit. Those lacking the ID would be given a provisional ballot, but the voter would have to present an approved document to the registrar's office within six days after the election.

Those lacking an acceptable identification would be given a free voter identification card.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been used by federal authorities for decades to oversee election changes in 16 states or selected areas, including parts of New York City.

Texas and other jurisdictions have chafed at the requirements, saying there has been no recent government effort to discriminate. They argue they should not continue to have the burden of showing that any voting changes would not burden or interfere with someone's ability to vote.

Opponents of the voter ID law in Texas have said minority voter turnout could be suppressed 3% to 5% at a time when the Hispanic population there is growing rapidly. There have also been complaints the new law has not been sufficiently publicized.

"Texas' voter ID law would prevent countless Latinos, African-Americans, elderly citizens and others from casting their ballot," said Katie O'Connor, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We're pleased the Department of Justice has recognized the harms this discriminatory law would have on people's fundamental right to vote."

The Justice Department said Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 46.5% to 120% more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification.

The nation's second largest state has a population of 25.1 million, an increase of 4.3 million in the past decade. That explosive growth ensures Texas will gain four congressional seats, requiring new voting boundaries that are still being litigated in court. The Supreme Court in January ordered a special federal court in Texas to reconsider its rejection of the maps approved by the state's Republican majority. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/politics/texas-voter-law/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

Good old Supremes. They can always be counted on by the right these days, can't they?

From what I heard, many places in Texas don't even HAVE a DMV office, so people would have to drive a long ways to get a photo ident from them. The intention is obvious...has nothing to do with preventing voter fraud, and everyone knows it. It's just amazing how much overreach the right has been getting away with since 2010...boggles my mind.

How do they cash checks with no photo ID? Think of all the things you have to present photo ID in order to do. And you have an objection to voting being one of them? You can't buy Sudafed without a photo ID.

That may be true in your state, it isn't here (sudafed). Voting is an American RIGHT, not like driving a car, having a bank account or buying Sudafed. It shouldn't be infringed on, period, in my opinion, especially not as an excuse to lessen the voting rights of those who might vote for the party you oppose, which is precisely what it IS and everyone knows it.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll:
How do they cash checks with no photo ID? Think of all the things you have to present photo ID in order to do. And you have an objection to voting being one of them? You can't buy Sudafed without a photo ID.

Do you have a constitutional right to cash a check or buy Sudafed?

This amounts to a poll tax, requiring something from people in order to vote, and then making it cost them time and/or money in order to get it.

If you are at or below poverty level, you have a choice: eat this week, or get an ID that will allow you to vote. Oh, and to do the latter, you'll need to take time off work to go down to the DMV to wait in line. Plan on at least a half a day in lost wages on top of what you already can't afford to pay for such an ID.

If you're elderly and on a fixed income, you also need a ride in order to get there and spend money you don't have.

For a large - and GROWING, thanks to Republican policies - chunk of the voting public, voting just became a luxury they can no longer afford. This is, of course, exactly the idea and purpose behind such laws.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Does anyone remember when the government used to do things? I seem to remember that when I was young, the Federal government did all kinds of things.

It doesn't seem like the government does much of anything anymore. But presidential administrations do a lot of things. It's Bush and Obama that do things now. In this case, "The Obama Administration."

Is this new, or did I simply fail to notice before?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Many states offer free photo IDs. Your state doesn't have a DMV open after hours? Mine does. It's open until 8pm every Wednesday. Maybe you should put together a facebook movement and get that changed in your state.

Pseudohedrine most definitely requires a photo ID to purchase. You may be purchasing the neutered Sudafed that contains no pseudohedrine. The DEA will come knocking if you buy too much of it, too quickly. That what what meth heads cook down into crystal meth.

Our local DMVs don't have late hours, just FYI. More to the point, however, is that apparently in Texas MANY counties don't have local DMVs, so people have to drive a long ways to get a photo ID there. That makes it extra difficult, considering time and money. Also, the elderly sometimes don't drive or have ways TO get there, whereas they can get to local polling places to vote. And no, I know of no place one has to show a photo ID in order to register to vote, most places make it as easy as possible by putting registration in post offices, etc.

It's just a new "Jim Crow", surely everyone knows that who thinks about it. Voter fraud is miniscule compared to voter intimidation and voter blocking, which happen a lot in numerous places. Given there is virtually no ACTUAL voter fraud (lots of registration fraud on both sides, but not VOTER fraud), and the GOP is passing these laws left and right, and they affect the elderly, low income and minorities (all of which usually vote mostly Democratic), I'm surprised anyone even wants to debate it as if it were "real".

As to Presidents doing things, at least in Obama's case it's because he's been up against a deliberately obstructionist Congress during his entire administration. He kept trying to compromise to appease them, which had little or no effect, and they've been VERY clear that their entire agenda is to stop him in his tracks, not to work for the American people. It's been clear again and again with them blocking things which were orginally GOP ideas and backed by Republicans, the minute Obama adopted them. I don't know how else he CAN get anything done aside from using what powers he has available to him.

Things got done in the past because of compromise. There is none now on the right, so little or nothing can get done by Congress.

Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:
...As to Presidents doing things, at least in Obama's case it's because he's been up against a deliberately obstructionist Congress during his entire administration. He kept trying to compromise to appease them, which had little or no effect, and they've been VERY clear that their entire agenda is to stop him in his tracks, not to work for the American people. It's been clear again and again with them blocking things which were orginally GOP ideas and backed by Republicans, the minute Obama adopted them. I don't know how else he CAN get anything done aside from using what powers he has available to him.

Except for the first two years of his administration BOTH houses of congress were controlled by his party. How, exactly, does that constitute planned obstructionism?

You already know the answer, that question has been tossed out so many times it's ridiculous: By the Republicans filibustering EVERYTHING. Or, if you will, threatening to filibuster, which is essentially the same thing. You know perfectly well that to pass, a bill has to get through Congress and the Senate. They were quite clear that obstructionism was their intention from the minute Democrats got control of the Senate, and threatened to filibuster more than any other time in history:

Quote:As this chart shows, never have so many filibusters been threatened as in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year, Republicans filibustered more legislation, and required more cloture votes to break those filibusters, than in any Congress in recent history. By the time this term ends, Congress could well more than double the number of cloture votes of previous Congresses — including the ones that Republicans controlled and complained of Democratic 'obstruction.'

This is the result of a deliberate effort by the Republican minority to undercut the will of the majority of the American public, expressed when voters placed a Democratic majority in control of both houses of Congress. The filibuster, a procedure unique to the Senate to block an up-or-down vote on legislation unless a 60-vote supermajority agrees to proceed, has been historically used by both parties. But it has never been used as routinely as it has been by Republicans since January 2007.
http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction were quite open in their intentions:

Quote:As far back as January 2007, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that he would assume the role of Senate Obstruction Leader by insisting on a 60-vote supermajority, rather than a simple 50-vote majority, for getting bills through the Senate.

He claims “that’s the ordinary procedure.” But he’s wrong, and we have the proof. The reality is, his abuse of Senate procedures to block the majority will on legislation is unprecedented. http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction whip Trent Lott told Roll Call, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail… and so far, it’s working for us.” http://www.ourfuture.org/files/z_historic/tba05/obstruction-by-filibuster.pdf have also filibustered President Barack Obama's judicial nominees and other nominees which have left branches of government with no leaders. As of March 2010:

Quote:...while only 3 Bush nominees have been held up more than 3 months during his first year, 63 Obama nominees have been subjected to delay tactics, leaving important posts left unfilled.

Also, many of the blocks were not done by filibusters but instead by blue slips or holds which are almost impossible to count since they’re fairly informal, but stop legislation just the same.

Given the Democrats BARELY had a filibuster-proof majority, even trying for cloture was virtually impossible. All it took was one Senator choosing to, being blackmailed into, or in any other way convinced to vote against the Democrats, passing anything became impossible. They'd demand compromise, Democrats would compromise, then Republicans would threaten filibuster again. Once Democrats had less than 60 votes, they were easily obstructed, and have been ever since. Their intentions were quite clear and stated as such; your question was obviously deliberately disingenuous.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll:
So, you're conceding that democrats can't get their act together? They DID have a majority, but couldn't coordinate and work within their own ranks to get their whole table of legislation through?

But I guess it is easier to point fingers than to accept blame.

You certainly seem to think so, at least.

Because of GOP obstructionism, a majority is no longer enough. You need at least a supermajority, which neither party has.

Kind of like how the GOP couldn't simply privatize Social Security even though they had majorities in both houses and a president who said that was his goal. Even with such majorities, you can't always get what you want.

But you already know all this, and you're just playing dumb.

Or maybe you're NOT playing?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:
From what I heard, many places in Texas don't even HAVE a DMV office, so people would have to drive a long ways to get a photo ident from them.

It seems that this would be an equal impediment to Republican voters as it would to Democrats.

Actually, since Hispanic populations are growing faster in urban areas than rural, seems that the whites in rural areas(who everyone apparently assumes are Republicans) would be hurt more by the photo I.D. requirement over time.

"By 2020, the Texas Hispanic population is expected to outnumber the White population (Exhibit 8). Between 2000 and 2040 the Hispanic population will triple in Texas’ urban areas, from 5.9 million to 17.2 million. In rural areas, the Hispanic population is expected to double, from 777,000 to 1.6 million."

Although it's obviously more complex than you like to distill it down to, the fact is that I have often ridiculed the Democrats for not getting their act togeher. Which of course doesn't fit your narrative, so you ignore it. I've often made the joke that getting Democrats to agree is like "herding cats", a common snark, and expressed how pissed I've been at them that they can't be more cohesive. Republicans have historically "toed the mark" FAR more than Democrats, that's considered common knowledge. Partly that's been because Republicans keep a smaller "tent"--which tent has become miniscule in recent years. Democrats are more open to who they'll accept; ergo, they get a more diverse group.

As to the voter ID thing, that's obvious also. I would assume the idea is "you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs". Hispanics in urban areas are less likely to have a photo ID, less likely to have money to spend on one, and use public transportation more than Whites do (that last: http://utsa.academia.edu/CoreySparks/Papers/855294/Understanding_Carpool_Use_by_Hispanics_in_Texas). Ergo it is more time-consuming, and possibly more difficult, for them to make a special trip to the DMV for a photo ID. Also, they tend to be poorer, which means they probably have less time/money available to make that special trip.

Texas has also been playing around with redistricting to limit Hispanics' voting power, which is also under scrutiny:

Quote:There is “ample circumstantial evidence” that the congressional and state representative redistricting maps signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry had not only the effect but the intent of limiting the voting power of Hispanic voters, Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing late Tuesday.

DOJ is seeking to block the maps, filing to deny Texas’ request for summary judgement in a case involving allegations that state officials tried to limit the voter power of Hispanic voters in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Federal lawyers contended in the newest filing that there is “ample circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory purpose with regard to both the State House and Congressional plans” and that in the new maps nearly half a million fewer Hispanics would live in districts where they would have the ability to elect a candidate of their choosing.

Race and ethnicity, the lawyers wrote “were common themes during discussions between the Republican leadership and others, including a United States Congressman and staff. State leaders viewed race as a proxy for party, leading to redistricting decisions and movements of population based solely on the basis of race.”

The member of Congress in question is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) — who as it so happens chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which has primary oversight over DOJ. Smith’s emails are cited as an example of officials plotting to protect their electoral interests while taking race into account.

“....the email exchanges between United States Congressional representatives and staff, and State officials involved in devising the State’s plans, provide riveting circumstantial evidence bearing witness to the process discussed above, where data as to race and ethnicity rather than partisan data drove the line drawing for the proposed Congressional plan, and where the State sought to exclude minority representatives from the redistricting process,” DOJ lawyers said in reference to emails to and from Smith.

Quote:In a filing to a three-judge panel in Washington, Texas asked to submit a petition charging that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment."

As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under that section of the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/15/texas-takes-aim-at-blocked-voter-id-law/ of 1966, the "poll tax" was still alive and well in Texas when the Supreme Court eliminated it. Go back even further to 1944, when primaries were conducted by private associations in Texas, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. ( http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html) Texas' long history of voter discrimination is WHY they have to clear redistricting and changes to their voter laws with the feds.

You can argue that the redistricting and photo ID moves have no racial intent, but you'll fail every time; history and facts are against you.

ETA: Yes, we will sooner or later see what happens when Dems are in the minority in the Senate. Then we'll see if they decide to play the same game. I hope they don't, and if they don't, I'll remind you of what you said.

Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:
Although it's obviously more complex than you like to distill it down to...

Huh? I was responding to the one comment you made concerning the article in the original post.

Quote:Hispanics in urban areas are less likely to have a photo ID, less likely to have money to spend on one, and use public transportation more than Whites do ... Ergo it is more time-consuming, and possibly more difficult, for them to make a special trip to the DMV for a photo ID. Also, they tend to be poorer, which means they probably have less time/money available to make that special trip.

So its not that Hispanics have to travel farther in rural areas after all? It's that they don't have the time or bus fare to go somewhere in the city once in several years to get a photo I.D.?

Come on, Niki. This is just the Democrats pandering to the Hispanic voters they hope to get in 2012. If it were white republicans who were poorer and had to spend time/money to get photo I.D., all you'd hear from the Obama Justice Department would be crickets.

Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:
Although it's obviously more complex than you like to distill it down to...

Huh? I was responding to the one comment you made concerning the article in the original post.

Quote:Hispanics in urban areas are less likely to have a photo ID, less likely to have money to spend on one, and use public transportation more than Whites do ... Ergo it is more time-consuming, and possibly more difficult, for them to make a special trip to the DMV for a photo ID. Also, they tend to be poorer, which means they probably have less time/money available to make that special trip.

So its not that Hispanics have to travel farther in rural areas after all? It's that they don't have the time or bus fare to go somewhere in the city once in several years to get a photo I.D.?

Come on, Niki. This is just the Democrats pandering to the Hispanic voters they hope to get in 2012. If it were white republicans who were poorer and had to spend time/money to get photo I.D., all you'd hear from the Obama Justice Department would be crickets.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case. I have often heard Democrats advocate for the poor regardless of racial identity.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

OR, you could try and find some facts to answer Geezer's question, but as we have all learned, righties arent really interested in facts.

I believe Niki mentioned that Texas' history of voter suppression and other shady election tactics, along with about 10 or so other states, resulted in an agreement under the Fair Voting Act (I think that was the legislation) where those certain states are required to have the FEC approve any changes to their election process, since they have demonstrated that they can, have, and will discriminate when it comes to their voting process.

Im not 100 percent sure, but I do not believe that Idaho is one of those states, which essentially means they dont have the same oversight that Texas does.

It certainly seems unbalanced, if this is unacceptable in Texas, it should probably be unacceptable everywhere, but thats the song of government for ya.

Perhaps it's because a photo ID is not required in Idaho, as indicated by the very link you just provided.

Quote:If a voter is not able to show an acceptable ID, the voter will be given the option to sign the Personal Identification Affidavit. On the Affidavit, the voter swears to his/her identity under penalty of perjury, a felony under 34-1114, Idaho Code.

After signing the Affidavit, the voter will be issued a ballot to be tabulated with all other ballots.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

My state has motor-voter. You can register to vote at the DMV when you get your license. You can also register by mail. Then they mail you a voter registration card to the address on your license or the address you have provided.

How come this is not news?

Subsection 4937.

Quote:(a) A voter, upon entering the room where an election is being held, shall announce that voter's own name and address and provide proof of identity, whereupon the clerks shall place a mark or make a notation of his or her name upon the election district record...

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

You nailed it, Blue; because of its past history (along with some other states), they have more oversight when it comes to discriminating against poor and minority voters. As to Dems only wanting the voting block, then why is it that Republicans are trying so hard in numerous states to pass this kind of law, when it's been proven over and over and OVER that voter fraud is not a problem? There must be some reason they want to pass laws that discriminate against poor and minorities when it comes to voting. Seems to me the logical thing is to make it easier for as many Americans as possible to vote, if it had nothing to do with discrimination...

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll:
In Texas, ID cards are $16 and are valid for 6 years. 65 and over is $6 and valid indefinitely. Disabled veterans of any age get one for free. Lost ID cards cost $11 to replace.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case. I have often heard Democrats advocate for the poor regardless of racial identity.

So why haven't they take action against the photo I.D. law in Idaho? Surely it would affect poor people in the same way as the one in Texas?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case. I have often heard Democrats advocate for the poor regardless of racial identity.

So why haven't they take action against the photo I.D. law in Idaho? Surely it would affect poor people in the same way as the one in Texas?

Perhaps it's because a photo ID is not required in Idaho, as indicated by the very link you just provided.

Quote:If a voter is not able to show an acceptable ID, the voter will be given the option to sign the Personal Identification Affidavit. On the Affidavit, the voter swears to his/her identity under penalty of perjury, a felony under 34-1114, Idaho Code.

After signing the Affidavit, the voter will be issued a ballot to be tabulated with all other ballots.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

Yes indeed.

Quote:August 2011: The National Conference of State Legislators issues a report explaining the differences in Texas’ law compared to others recently passed. The report concludes that:
Only six other states, like Texas, have a strict photo requirement: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Tennessee. Seven states — Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota — ask voters for photo ID, but still allow them to cast a ballot if they don’t have a photo ID and can meet other specific criteria. Sixteen other states require voters to show some form of ID, though not necessarily with a photo.

I believe all of or at least most of the six with the stricter requirements are all being challenged, or have already been thrown out as being too restrictive.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case. I have often heard Democrats advocate for the poor regardless of racial identity.

So why haven't they take action against the photo I.D. law in Idaho? Surely it would affect poor people in the same way as the one in Texas?

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.